Smells like inhibition: The effects of olfactory and visual alcohol cues on inhibitory control
Psychopharmacology
Smells like inhibition: The effects of olfactory and visual alcohol cues on inhibitory control
R. L. Monk 0
J. Sunley 0
A. W. Qureshi 0
D. Heim 0
0 Edge Hill University , St Helens Rd, Ormskirk L39 4QP , UK
Rationale How the smell of alcohol impacts alcohol-related thoughts and behaviours is unclear, though it is welldocumented that alcohol-related stimuli and environments may trigger these. Objectives The current study, therefore, aimed to investigate the priming effects of both visual and olfactory alcohol cues on inhibitory control. Method Forty individuals (M age = 23.65, SD = 6.52) completed a go/no-go association task (GNAT) which measured reaction times, response accuracy and false alarm rates whilst being exposed to alcohol-related (or neutral) olfactory and visual cues. Results Alcohol-related visual cues elicited lower false alarm rates, slower reaction times and higher accuracy rates relative to neutral pictorial cues. False alarm rates were significantly higher for those exposed to alcohol as opposed to neutral olfactory cues. Conclusions By highlighting that exposure to alcohol-related olfactory cues may impede response inhibition, the results indicate that exposure to such stimuli may contribute to the activation of cognitive responses which may drive consumption.
Alcohol; Inhibition; Cues; Olfactory; Context; GNAT
-
The pairing of the psychological and physiological effects of
alcohol consumption with related paraphernalia, people or
places can lead to conditioned responses to such stimuli, in
the absence of the substance
(Rohsenow et al. 1990)
. The
presentation of such stimuli (e.g. the sight of an alcoholic
beverage) has been shown to trigger such responses in both
clinical and non-clinical populations
(e.g. Cooney et al. 1987;
Kenny et al. 2006; Nees et al. 2012; Siegel 2001; Traylor et al.
2011; see also Glautier et al. 1992; Kambouropoulos and
Staiger 2001; Ramirez et. al. 2014)
. These include
physiological arousal
(Kenny 2007; Sinha et al. 2009)
, such as
increased salivation (Rohsenow et al. 1994), electro
dermal activity
(Garland et al. 2012; Stormark et al. 1993)
,
and heart rate (Ingjaldsson et al. 2003). Exposure to
substance-related cues and environments has also been
found to be related to changes in alcohol consumption
(Monk et al. 2015)
, as well as related cognitions
(Monk
and Heim 2013a, b, 2014)
, relapse
(e.g. Carter and
Tiffany 1999; Marlatt 1990; Siegel 2005; Zironi et al.
2006)
and craving
(Conklin and Tiffany 2002; Courtney
and Ray 2014; Modell and Mountz 1995)
.
Such findings are in keeping with the notion that
substance-related cues not only involuntarily capture people’s
attention but also automatically trigger arousal associations
(Field and Cox 2008; Wiers et al. 2002)
. Accordingly,
alcohol-salient environments can be important contextual
moderators of attentional biases, as has been demonstrated
in both clinical (Field et al. 2014) and non-clinical groups
(Albery et al. 2015)
. For instance, light drinkers are passively
exposed to high levels of alcohol-related cues in their
everyday lives (e.g. by spending much of their time in bars/pubs),
whilst heavy drinkers are actively engaged with the
alcoholrelated cues in their environment (when drinking). As such,
light drinkers display higher levels of attentional bias towards
alcohol-related words (passive cues) in comparison to heavy
drinkers. Specifically, in contrast to light drinkers, heavy
drinkers are actively involved in alcohol consumption,
meaning they display high levels of alcohol-related attentional
interference, regardless of how much time they spend in
alcohol-related contexts. Further attentional interference in
response to passive cue exposure is thus not evident
(Albery
et al. 2015)
. It is therefore apparent that alcohol-related
attentional biases fluctuate and are shaped by exposure to the
contextual cues that individuals encounter in everyday life.
Context can therefore influence the degree of attentional bias
individuals have towards alcohol.
Inhibition controls the strength of alcohol-related
attentional biases
(Field and Cox 2008)
and is one of the
processes believed to underlie the aetiology of addictive
behaviours
(Wiers et al. 2002)
. Inhibitory control relies on a
limited resource
(Inzlicht and Berkman 2015; Muraven and
Baumeister 2000)
which may be overwhelmed in the
presence of motivational alcohol cues (although see Monti and
Rohsenow 1999 for cue exposure therapy). Indeed, it has
been suggested that higher levels of impulsiveness and
lower inhibitory control are associated with stronger cue-elicited
cravings for alcohol in clinical samples
(Papachristou et al.
2013)
. Changes in inhibitory control responses during
exposure to alcohol-related pictorial cues have also been
observed. Specifically, in a go/no-go task, participants appear
to make more commission errors (false alarm rate; FAR)
when no-go stimuli are super-imposed on al (...truncated)